I've read many science papers regarding this herbicide from both the manufaturer and independent research. I stopped using it over 8 years ago.
I wonder what the Monsanto spin doctors will have to say now.

For example, 450 of 1,000 pregnant heifers fed wheat silage experienced spontaneous abortions. Over the same period, another 1,000 heifers from the same herd that were raised on hay had no abortions.
High concentrations of the pathogen were confirmed on the wheat silage, which likely had been under weed management using glyphosate.

As there is no RR wheat marketed, observed Bradford, this could only refer to management of prior crops or fallow ground or preplant weed control, which could also be the case for the hay.

If, in fact, this new organism had heavily infested wheat, this would make unlikely that glyphosate was involved, the opposite of his conclusion. Rather scary that Dr. Huber is not aware of which crops have RR and which do not when making his inferences.

Purdue University, where Huber was professor, has also issued a statement intended to clarify the relationship between glyphosate and plant disease development in which they wrote that overall, the claims that glyphosate is having a widespread effect on plant health are largely unsubstantiated (9).
Others colleagues have expressed further doubts, among them:​

'Junk science' is a glib and handy dismissal of any science that is non-corporate, but it just doesn't add up. There are scientifically sound arguments (and studies) and there are scientifically unsound ones. Anyone who believes only corporate science (big science) can answer questions must be one of the very, very few among us who hasn't been touched by autism or some other mystery ailment.

Thanks for sharing this news about Roundup. It sounds like there's are strong reasons to be concerned, whatever the background of the researcher. (Incidentally, where are these 'studies' with 'NO evidence', Bear Foot Farm?)

Part of my research in pursuing my Master's degree in biology and ecology has dealt with these herbicides. Additionally, I've obtained my pesticide applicators license so I've had some good educational exposure to this chemical and others used in the trade. There is a very good reason one needs to be qualified to apply them.

One of my professors said to take a look at the source of funding for any study. Essentially, who paid for the results. Another "tell" is the statistical analysis used in the report. Can the experiment be repeated? Are the data reliable and analyised using the most powerful tools available?

Perhaps some of you are old enough to remember when they were spraying DDT everywhere and the results of that. And perhaps some of you are still around that were exposed to Agent Orange. Although I doubt it.

But one should form his own opinions based on sound scientific research and experiments that are un-biased and can be duplicated. That ain't junk science, my friends.

A lot of studies relies heavily on anecdotal evidence kina like someone who starts using blinking eyes to save their flock and they do not realize there is a trapper on either side of them taking care of the predator problem but ever since they started using the blinking eyes there aren't any coon around here no more LOL find out who paid for the study and investigate what their agenda is and you will see what the "study "is worth LOL

We don't use products produced by Monsanto or any of their companies because of their business ethics. I get the need for pesticides and herbicides to increase crop output. I just don't like they way they "protect" their patents.